Charlotte, North Carolina (CNN) - It began 40 years ago with one delegate from Buffalo. Now, at the Democratic National Convention this week, the call for a federal law recognizing same-sex marriages will become part of the party's official platform.

Madeline Davis was one of only two openly gay delegates at the 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami Beach. In a ground breaking moment, she identified herself at the podium as a lesbian and asked her fellow delegates to adopt language calling for equal rights for homosexuals.

[2:29] “We’ve done so much since that. We’ve done so much picketing and so much convincing and had so many meetings and… it’s just a lifetime of work and for some reason my major feeling about this is I’m really tired. I’m really tired.”

While the party platform is changing, Davis says it’s just the beginning of a new chapter in the gay rights movement:

[3:31] “I think it’s going to take a very long time for this to be accepted nationally. It’s going to go back and forth through the courts. It’s going to go back and forth through statewide votes. It’s going to be very long. It’s going to be longer, I think, than the time I already waited.”

Delegates attending a welcoming party in Charlotte for the LGBT community were more optimistic. Jerame Davis is executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, the only national LGBT Democratic organization:

[4:29] “It means a lot because it’s an ideal. For our work in particular what the platform means is it is a picture of what the ideal Democrat looks like. And our party is saying the ideal Democrat supports LGBT equality fully.”

I would love someone to prove to me that homosexuality is a sin. Using the bible in its true context of the times it was written. NOT after it was twisted around to mean something it doesnt. There are what.. 6 passages in the bible that address what we today might call homosexual activity. The one i hear cited most is from Leviticus 18:22. Essentially reading "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" and it goes hand in hand with Leviticus 20:13 that says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman they have both committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them." Yet... the new testament, in the book of Acts and during the creation of the Council of Jerusalem, states that the laws of the Israelite do not apply to the Gentiles. They mean NOTHING to Christians. This is IN the bible. So while the laws of Leviticus have been discarded as obsolete. This one passage is upheld. Not because the bible says it must be but because people need a reason to legitimize their discrimination against people. The laws of the time were divided among two main categories. The Justices and the Jobs. Justices deal with issues of morality using the base of "Love your neighbor as yourself". Justices contains the laws relating to things such as do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not lie, do not murder, and do not rape. Jobs contained everything else including items of sexual perversion. When Paul asked Jesus what laws should be followed, the Justices or the Jobs, Jesus replied the Justices. Another reference to the Justices in Romans 13:18-20 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." Again... further proof FROM the bible that Leviticus is no longer accepted as the law. Moses' law of morality does not trump the laws of God and Jesus... anyway enough of this religious talk. It just seems very clear to me that religion is NOT the problem. Its what people choose to take and ignore from it. But no matter how you spin it. Laws of the old testament are no longer applicable.

Current Ancient Alien theorist hold that at least two groups of Aliens came to Earth during the formation of our religions. One group the rather benign Gray Aliens really were trying to help mankind. Another Alien group came here to mine our Gold, chlorofluorocarbon, protein and other resources and used humans as Slaves. These two Alien Groups were seen as God(s) which explains the many contradictions in the Bible and other religious text.
This also explains why many cultures belief in multiple gods.
Actually the Mayans specifically believed that their Gods came from the Skies and knew of a Star around the time of Christ that modern man only discovered less than 100 years ago. They believed all mankind came from that star, Strangley enough just last year an earth like planet was discovered in that star system.

The Republican Party can get behind the supernatural and the metaphysical, but they can't seem to come back down to Earth and get behind their gay brothers and sisters and neighbors. They think life has been carved out for them and them only.

You get every Sunday of every week to bash gay Americans, so please allow us this one week to stand tall with pride concerning who we are, what our hopes and dreams are and what we want for society when we are long gone.

Republicans have a twisted and bizarre urge to thwart the lives of gay Americans – even the ones that are fighting on the front lines for their freedoms. If you ask me, Republicans are the deviant ones.

There's two questions you have to answer for yourself.
1. Did Jesus die and come back to life three days later.
2. Did Saul see Jesus on the Demascus road and have a huge life transforming experience.

If the answer to those two questions is yes, then you have to believe homosexual ACTIONS (not desires) are sins. Gay people see Christians as wanting to restrict their freedoms. What we are doing is inviting them into a higher state of happiness that will send chills down their spines. It's so majestic and soul staggering when you sin sexually and you can ask the precious son of God to apply Jesus' blood anew to your life and then keep on fighting your sin.

Did you see God's son? How do you know that he is beautiful? You are living in a dream world. You know just about as much about God as a South American centipede, a Scottish Deerhound and a Saudi camel.

Rob: Reference is Matthew 8:10. The Centurian was a military man with great authority over men. Even though he had great authority he recognized he had no authority over death, but knew Jesus ded. The centurian was not gay. That scripture does not have any reference to homosexual sin. Read that in the context of the entire passage and you'll see that. Keep reading God's word, Robairdo, He will reveal his truth and healing to you.

Mathew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:1-10 (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.)
The Centurions servant in the originaly Greek is referred to as the "special servant" by Luke & Mathew and in other places by Luke as "pais" – younger, junion, or son, everyone including Luke, Mathew, and Jesus knew what this meant.
The Centurion was Pagan and homosexuality was not an issue in Pagan Rome, yet Christ said to him "You have more faith they any in all of Israel" then proceeded to cure his "special servant"

Unfortunately half the people in my country still try to have their beliefs shoved down the throats of the other half and want less government in our lives unless it forces those who have different beliefs from them to live according to their own idea of morals. How about if I start a religion that says once you marry someone you must stay married until death and have you make that pledge before God. Oh wait, that already exists but divorce doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. Why? Because this is not really about God. It just gives bigots a vehicle to spread their hatred. Jesus would be so proud!

so what you're saying is that the gay man standing on the left end of the room could be exponentially more righteous and religious than the straight man on the right side of the room, but just because the left man is gay that automatically makes him dirty and a failure? How do you explain that when some of the religious people who are straight are the ones who are usually screwing things up, whether it be murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, or even the occasional man who claims to be the son of god, gets a bunch of people in a room, and shoots them all and himself so that they can go join god or drink the punch to do the same? Are they more righteous than the gay man too simply because they were straight?

What rights are these people worried about? They already have the right to live their deviant lifestyle, and march around like fools in parades, etc. Are we talking about their silly desire to have "gay marriage"? Give it to them, and then hopefully they will SHUT UP, and go take your deviance to a bedroom where nobody else had to see it.

No...don't give it to them! they will want more and try to take more...look at what happened just before WWII...Adolf kept saying just give me this or just give me that and that wwll Ibe all I want...so no...fight the perverts now!

That is just it, giving them gay marriage will not make them shut up. They will keep going till they take away rights of anyone who does not agree with them. They will make churches perform these marriages, anyone who does not agree with them already is a bigot, and they will work to get that legislated. I know that there will always be an exception when you look at them individually- but as a political force they are progressives and demanding in every since of the word. I will fight them tooth and nail. Not because I hate them, but because I do not think that bullying and threatening others to agree with them is any way to act. I will not give into my child throwing a tantrum, and I will not give into their demands.

Look at how they treated the Mormons, Catholics, and anyone who actively support prop 22 to see what they really are like.

Ashley....they are not trying to "take away" anyones rights. If you look at more than just what the news tells you then you would see that. Nobody is trying to tell churches "you have to do this" but shouldn't they at least be afforded that option? Just as any hetero couple is? Personally I did not get married in a church my first or second marriage because I chose not to as I do not fully believe in what churches follow. I have gotten married both times by a Justice of the Peace, the first in the JP's living room, the second on a dock by a nature trail on the base I am stationed at.

David, I know many people who are either gay or bi (myself included) and none of us actually goes and marches in the parades, and our "deviant lifestyles"?? I've yet to see any of them that go around making out in public to the point of basically having intercourse...usually it's the straight couples that you'll see making a slutty mess of themselves in public. Also it is usually the straight people that you'll most likely see having sex in public so please take YOUR deviant thoughts and keep them to yourself as they seem highly misinformed...if marriage is such a silly right then you shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

It's very sad when people see the words "gay marriage" and assume sexual deviance. There are extremes at both ends of the sexual spectrum (gay to heterosexual). But what gets failed to mention is that folks in a same-sex marriage want the same things as everyone else. They are two people committed to a relationship, to family, and to having the best person you know walking by your side through life.

So, when you stand before God and plea your case, what if you were wrong? It goes further that this, how can you be pro life and support the death penalty, or pro choice, abort a life yet oppose the death penalty. It is a hypocritical life we lead. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Marvin, so when there is no god to stand before, when reality hits and you realize this is it, no after life, no golden gates, then what? you weren't here prior to your birth and you won't be here after your death. will you admit you were wrong?

Marvin if you are wrong you will rot knowing you judged other people based on a book called the bible that is a fairy tale in itself. In the meantime you make all sorts of irrational decisions based on the fairy tale. I've made my decisions based on what I know to be right and wrong. I treat all people respectfully, not because a fairy tale book tells me to do so, but because it makes me feel good and I feel terrible doing the opposite. Can you say the same?

God does not need people Policing the Bedroom, get a life, and stop worrying about things that dont concern you. If a Gay person breaks the law call the Police like you would do with anyone. If there is a God only God can create a Soul or destroy one. Its so silly and arrogant for a Man or Woman to believe they created a Soul and only a wicked person has the power to destroy a Soul. But thats what the Bible has done for centuries confuse, and divide humanity. God does a better job at being God than any of you ego maniacs. President Obama will win in November and he should for the sake of Humanity.

Gays can get married in six states. More are on the way. What deleterious effect has this had on any marriage? Does it matter that a gay couple can wed a few states away? Does it have an impact if you have a gay married couple next door? The rights of heterosexual married couple will not be diminished if gays can marry. Will they teach your kids about homosexuality in school... well, perhaps as a part of sexual education, which parents must agree to. I think that is a fine way to control what a parent wishes their children to learn. Get to know a gay person... they bleed the same blood.

Some point out how homosexuality is vile, and that homosexual men carry more disease than the general population. There are many other populations in this world that spread disease and are not necessarily homosexual. I must concede, the visible gay population is promiscuous, a significant portion are HIV+. This does not apply to the total population. There are irresponsible people throughout the world. But there are clearly gay people who seek marriage. They seek commitment and stability, but are unable to get recognition and benefits in many states. In some way, the population crusading against the gay community that seeks marriage rights are culpable for their underground promiscuity. But I should ask, if gay people spread disease, why are you concerned about them dying, if you think they are a stain on society? A previous poster suggested that a gay person may infect their food... educate yourself on the spread of STDs, which I must point out stands for SEXUALLY transmitted diseases.

In the 1920s, women were given suffrage. From the 1950s-1970s, the rights of minorities were recognized. In time, gay rights will be recognized.

Here are three ways that "marriage equality" will affect traditional marriage".

1) There is x amount of money that the tax payers alot to y support families or per family assistance = x/y. When you add z gay couples to the equation, assitance = x/(y+z). If x stays the same, then assitance goes down. If assitance stays the same, then x has to go up. Tax assistance was originally enacted to provide help to cou;les raising children. Traditionally and more likely in today's world, it is the woman who is held back professionally due to child birth and raising children. This benefit helps ease that burden on families.

2) Heterosexual couples (on a time line to procreate) will have to stand in line behind same sex couples when it comes to fiancee visas.

3) Heterosexual couples will have to stay in line behind same sex couples when it comes to adoption.

4) ALL studies show that children who grow up in households with both biological parents are better as a group than those that grow up in any other situation. Society should not branch out to promote all other family units as being equal tot he biological mother and father. (this will be attacked with the arguement that single parents or adoptive families should have the same rights. I have not said they should lose any parental rights, I am stating that saying same-gender parents are equally beneficial as a mother and father is just not the case)

Gay couples who would even think about Marrying are ALREADY living together! If you dont know a Gay couple, chances are you never will. But to allow people to Vote on a persons right to Marry will go down in History as the most unAmerican thing this country has ever done, next to a man Romney who wants to be President of the United States, yet hides his tax returns and puts money in off shore banks to deny paying his fair share of taxes.

Where is the budget for this country! where are the college transcripts...where is the real birth certificate...what about this country...and your worried about tax returns that mean nothing except you libs trying to make it something to avoid the real issues of this country...vote Romney.

These are the same people that have voted for religious rights, womens rights, minorities rights, voting for rights will always come up which really makes no rights at all, you don't have the right to anything....you have the allowance to things that are voted favorably.

Gay people are found even in backward Red States, they just do it on the down low and make it very dirty because its not out in the open free of secrets and kicks. Its always the Minister or Republican Elected offical who is the most Dirty minded and caught in Airport Bathrooms or online.

For those who say, "It'll ruin the institution of marriage" you're telling me that the 10 day celebrity marriage is ok?

Secondly, for those who say, "God said it was an abomination", did you bother to read ALL of Leviticus? By that thinking, you shouldn't eat shellfish, plant two crops in the same plot, etc, etc. So please tell me you follow all of them. Last I checked there were no religious nuts picketing Joes Crab Shack or Red Lobster.

That shellfish agrument doesn't wash. God used those rules in the old testament so Hebrews would not mingle with others religions. It's not repeated in the new testament like the condemnation of sexual impurity and homosexuality is.

BruceB: Hebrews 12:2, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith......." Guess who had His hand in the writing of the Bible? 2Tim 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;"

Amen! The Religious Right have NO PROBLEM with Greed, Selfishness and Materialism though. Look who they want for President a man who hides his Tax Returns and puts money into off shore banks to avoid paying his fair share in taxes, while he enjoys all the benefits of Fire, Police, EMS and roads and bridges. President Obama will thankfully win in November he speaks from the Heart, and cares about people unlike the Robots Romney/Paul

Ruin marriage? Not really. Does it help tear down society a little more? Yes (just like sham celebrity marriages which make a joke of the institution that families are built on). Can it be stopped? Not really, there is no constitutional argument against it, therefore eventually these deviants will all be able to get "married". Sad for society, but it is what it is, the decline of morality.

oh please Obama is a highly educated liberal thinker. if you really believe he was "against gay marriage" 4 years ago you're an idiot. It's because of people like yourself that he had to wait for the right time to take a stance for gay marriage. whatever he had to say to ensure mccain didn't take office is what he did. and honestly, that sort of political strategy is fine by me.

LOL! you libatuds never fail to amaze me...odopey has a fine educated lib mind! nice try bonehead...only a lib blind puppet would believe that krap...where is the budget for this country...where is odopeys college transcripts and where is the real birth certificate...you boy is a flip flopper and a liar...he just wants the vote from the perverts and the illegals.

With a minority group like Gays/Lesbians its hardly going to push President Obama over the top, but it does show he is a man looking Forward not Back. Romney cant even be his own man, he has to draw on an old Movie Actor from 30 years ago who was President. Those days of gutting Corporation over site are over, look how they policed them self in 2008 with the biggest collapse of the economy since the Great Depression, and the GOP want us right back in the same boat.

Now that the definition of marriage has broken down we're on a slippery slope. We've opened a Pandora's Box that cannot be closed. This is something the LGBT community said would never happen. Don't believe me? CNN last week reported on a "threesome" that was recently solemnized in Brazil. They also reported on a "quintet" (two men and three women) they were aware of. What will the term mean in 50 years?

You are the one that has chosen to use terms that have negative tones such as "slippery slope," which if you asked me, sounds like the religious rhetoric I have heard from the recent past. What you have chosen to label
as dark and sinister, I label as "cultural evolution" and expansion for humanity.

You bring up the case in Brazil? I've heard far more about "wives" and surrogate mothers from non-child bearing wives from the bible.

despite growing up and seeing straight people in my family, on TV, in public kiss and make out my entire life, i still find it weird. yes as a gay person, i find it STRANGE that a woman and a man would kiss. it's more normal to me to see 2 men or 2 women together.
having said that, i'd never for a second believe straight people should have their civil rights violated just because their relationship is something i can't fully understand or want for myself.

it's not a stretch at all...you're just not used to hearing what gay people think of straight relationships. i didn't call it abnormal, i just don't understand straight relationships and it's not for me. imagine that

Sir, you have a lot of fear inside you. I am guessing you are an older gentleman. Don't let fox news scare you. No one is going to marrying their goat just because a man and another man may be able to get married. This country is about FREEDOM, isn't it?

What's that? Slippery slope, eh? So you believe in the sanctity of marriage as it was defined hundreds of years ago? Question- Have you turned yourself into police for human trafficking? Cause, a few hundred years ago, wives were property. Or turn yourself in for pedophilia? Cause hundreds of years ago you got married around 13/14 years old. No, you believe in marriage for love, right? Cause that's always what it's been about; not the arranged marriages that have nothing to do with the feeling.
You're an ignorant bigot. Homosexuals have a right to marry whomever they want (within reason), just like you do. Or do you believe in repressing someone because of their views, beliefs, or race? I'm willing to be you'd be one of those same people OUTRAGED they "let 'dem blacks get married to us white folk". Simply- if you don't agree with gay marriage, don't have one.

Or wait, wait, wait. You want to make sure your "biblical representative" gets into office so the holy sanctity of marriage stays intact. Cause he's not a MORMON WHO BELIEVES IN POLYGAMY. *Cough Brazil.

The Mormons did not give up polygamy willingly.
From Wikipedia: " In 1862, the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories (including Utah) and dis-incorporated the church.In spite of the law, Mormons continued to practice polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.

LOL! no...it's when the perverts have to have their "gay pride marches" that makes me sick or if you run across a gay/lesbian the first thing they tell you that they are perverts...and no it isn't even that...it is when they lie and say that someone wrote hate crimes on my home and find out that they lied and did it themselves to get attention...we don't need any more perverts...

The issue would be moot if laws were in place for estate planning, adoption, say-so over a partners dire health issues, or any other rights man/women married couples have. Not many people walk down the aisle for the sole purpose of "living happily after." They get married to form a union to share family, assets, and estate planning.

Coldbeerz: That's not entirely true. The reason gays are pushing so hard for marriage rights is it would put their relationships on the same legal level as hetero marriages. When that happens you'll see a much bigger push from the gay comunity to show gay marriages in school books as equal to hetero marriage. The ultimate goal is to change the public perception of gay relationships to be as 'normal' and accepted as hetero relationships.

I am gay, but i feel that is besides the point. My point is that religion is merely words writen by people, PEOPLE years ago. I have never seen any reasons to believe in a divine influence or god. Id like to believe, but nothing to date has me convinced. In my opinion the catholic church being the biggest corporation in the world, was designed merely to control people. Why are some words written in a centuries old book compelling enough to live your life that way, so far to even hate people over those words. Its really quite disgusting, its human nature i can hate somebody for any reason, but when I use a crutch such as a book, its just sad to me. In addition, if your going to follow the world of these ancient texts, you cannot pick and choose what you want to follow. its pretty much all or nothing, and the text is out dated and quite impractical. Just because you don't like that people are gay, and your book happens to speak poorly about it. how about every other social issue that faces the country? crime? war? adultery? i can go on. Im not all that heated on the gay marriage debate, i see your point..marriage man and a women. okay i got it, but if your going to stick to your guns on it, then do it on every topic of the bible. The hypocritical overtone of it all is mind boggling, if your religion gives you hope, happiness, morals , life lessons. whatever, that is wonderful keep those things. however, when it causes hate not only coming from you towards others, but also causes others to hate you. there is a problem, The bottom line is that it just so happens Christianity is dominate in our country, there is nothing anywhere proving to me that your views are more valid then anyone else. I'm not trying to be offensive, i am merely pointing out my logical process. It just sounds insane to me to honestly live your lives to the T of words in a book that stories were written by people who had "divine intervention, and experienced the presence of god. I mean really, what a novel idea. It just makes me think of the movie the book of eli, where the leader of the "gang" wanted the bible, so he could control the masses. Could not of hit the hammer on the head any more directly. that's what its all about, even down to political agenda, can all be passed via the church and the divine word of god. The more i think about the horrid blasphemy performed by the church the more angry i get. Can you be serious? Biggest Corporation in america, Full of child molesters..just lol... and its not just a few bad apples. Its just sad, very sad..you'll hate me because im gay, because i want to be married..because the bible says so. but you'll still step foot into the church that allowed your 'trusted' religious guide to scar your child for life, oh and watch out because a good majority of males sexuality abused as children turn out to be gay. Put the book of lies down, focus on something more important. Do you honestly think that we will NEVER be allowed marriage? you can stall and dither and fight fight fight but eventually it WILL happen. And then you'll be sitting here like us white males are thinking of how stupid we are, equal African american rights, women rights.(stupid for not allowing those things) One day soon you'll see.

Just a book: So you say religion was written by people years ago, implying that with the passage of time, such words become less relevant to society, right? If that is your argument, then explain why should we worship the operation of the calendar above God? And also what "invisible hand" of humanity has decreed that God is dead in 2012? Sounds like you're forcing a religion on people, which would be hypocrisy.

Voice of truth- I am exactly saying that these words and practices as written are not relevant to today's modern society, which should be expect seeing as it was written so many years ago. If it could be "rewritten" with today's standards inline i would be all for it, especially if the author made a 2012 appearance. I went on a bit of a rant, i do not care what you believe in, it is your choice. It only bothers me when it effects my daily life. I was merely illustrating my opinion and how silly it is to me that I have to suffer because of these words or beliefs. I also admit my views of Christians/Catholics has been spurred by mainstream media. Personally, i don't care if its called marriage, civil union..or WHATEVER. If you want the "sanctity" of your word to remain in tact that is fine with me, if federally civil union was to be adopted Id have no major argument. The fact is that, no civil union isn't a federal thing, and i live in a state with civil unions. Because some states allow marriage, some states allow unions, all i want is transparency across the board. I certainly don't want to experience a California instance where i get married then told my marriage isn't legal. I am willing to compromise, I can appreciate your views and feelings, but you should also appreciate mine. Which by all means you most likely do, i am just speaking generally. All i want is to be free to love who i choose to love and not be treated differently because of it, its not a choice if it was I SURELY would have chosen to be straight. There is nothing cool or popular about hiding who you are nearly everyday of your life, not only to friends, family, co-workers anyone. Don't get me wrong im not hiding a closet, but i surely dont disclose that information to just anyone. hiding in plain sight.

Have you met most political-debating Christians, or are you relying on the anti-Christian mainstream media to form your opinions of Christians? I am such a Christian, but I could care less what two consenting adults want to do. However, I do care when an agenda is afoot to redefine the definition of marriage and force that definition on me. Most of the masses don't see the ulterior motive – they just focus on the vagueness that the media clouds the debate with.

Here's what I think about homosexual marriage. I don't think it's right to condone it because homosexuals engage in sexual acts that are far more dangerous for your health than vaginal sex. I know it sounds terrible talking about this in public, but let's face the facts: sodomy hurts you, whether you believe it's because it's immoral or if it's immoral because it does hurt you. No, I don't think you should turn someone down for a job because of their sexual addiction and immorality, but if it involves food, I wouldn't want a straight prostitute preparing my food because of the risk of infectious disease spreading. STD's run rampant in homosexual communities. I personally have never had an STD, and I don't want to get one from eating at Burger King. This is not about hating you for what you do behind closed doors at all. If you're like that, you can work at waste management or something.

You are providing misinformation. Homosexuality doesn't cause disease. Viruses and bacteria cause disease. These viruses doesn't care what your sexual orientation is. Truth be told, countering your misinformation, STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are spread far more from heterosexuals than homosexuals. Infants are born with antibacteria medicine placed in their eyes to prevent blindness from syphlis. STD clinics, free health clinics, county clinics which assist with STD's were in placed way before the HIV pandemic.

Joels2000: Are you a revisionist historian? At least allow some time to pass before you revise the truth. The CDC itself has reported about the rise in certain diseases associated with segments of the homosexual community, so let's not endanger public health for the sake of political correctness. But nevertheless, I don't think this sidetrack to the topic is going to be of benefit here.

The point is essentially that people choose to marry for reasons other than the sexual position they choose. Plenty of gay partnerships are not about F0cking. The range of human intimacy goes far beyond your comic book impressions, thank you very much. Disease is disease, no matter what your equipment is. Get on with human life. If it suits you and is OK with your legal partner, enjoy your time on Earth.

It shows that perverts are everywhere...when I see or hear about the perverts trying to make ways into our society that they are "normal" then I know it is wrong to help spread perversions in our lives...tell me what happened to Sodom and Gommorah...

Lifeobryan: Define "biblical"? That might be tough for some, so let me help. The Bible is common to three major religions and other offshoots. For Christians, which I think is the target of your sarcasm, the mystery of marriage was revealed in the New Testament to be between one man and one woman. I know, I know. Shocking, isn't it? So that's where the basis for marriage hails from in western civilization. Yep, you're welcome.

So Jim, by your logic people that are incapable of conception should not be allowed to be married because they can'not have children? Senior citizens that are past their child bearing years should not be allowed to get married? Your thinking is outdated and not valid.

Andrew: Nice try, but your line of thinking fails. Someone whose reproductive system degenerated to the state of dysfunction is not the same as someone who enters a union that cannot produce children. Your comment exemplifies why political correctness has gone way too far.

Hmmmm...the word marriage is a made up English word, that society has attached meaning to, and assumes it means Man + Woman. Since we made the word up, we can also change the meaning to associate it with the union of any loving couple. No where in the dictionary does it say that married couples have to produce Children, Uncles, Aunts or any of the other non-sense you spouted. There are some couples who are sterile, should they also be denied the right to marry...how about older couples that are passed their child bearing years...they should also then be denied to marry. And if a couple is supposed to have children, then they should be forced from the start to that endeavour.

Homosexuality is a degenerate sickness. So those who say it is normal and agree with the immoral practices and perversons that are a part of being gay ,are part of the immoral majority and are just seeking political gain.

us_1476: What are you babbling about? Political correctness should never replace true science. Homosexuality is not a normal part of nature. Science is not as convinced on this topic as you appear to be. Those nature shows you watch can make errors, too.

J.mullins, what do you have your doctorate in that allows you to make assumptions about a possible illness that someone else has. You must be a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Oh wait, even if you are, your fellow scientists have disputed you on that. And if you are just spouting what your faith is from a biblical standpoint, you should be aware that this country is governed off a set of principles that is called the Constitution, and that guarantees that citizens should have the same rights. Even God put us on this planet to have say over our own destiny, not have it dictated to us by a bunch of prejudicial hypocrites.

Bigotry is defined as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." It's no doubt that according to the Bible, God made us all despite our different racial identities. But you have to believe that homosexuality is either chosen or given. So in this sense, both those who support homosexuality and those who oppose it as something you could have been born with can be considered bigots. Those who believe in the Bible usually oppose while those who don't or look past it do and basically, both sides fight over it as a social issue. Personally, I believe government shouldn't interfere with my right as a homosexual to freely express my love for another man, if that ever happens, and the use of religion to limit someone else's rights is antithetical to the precepts of liberty and justice for all that all Americans have according to the Constitution.

Yeah.... it's ironic that you're a free man in the Republic of Texas when you don't want me to be free myself. By the way, we're all given "unalienable" rights by the Constitution. Unalienable means inalienable which means "incapable of being transferred to another or repudiated" so please do all Texans a favor and educate yourself. As a gay man, I have rights according to the Constitution and while religious zealots want to stigmatize me, we will never have a true separation of church affairs from state affairs.

P.S. By the way, I was born this way, I was born gay, and if you dare say I chose this lifestyle, who would choose to be ostracized if they could just change back? Being gay is nothing "cool" that one would just choose it, and trying to change is trying to change what God made me to be. I'm population control, that's my biological purpose while my political purpose is to promote civil rights with my God-given talents and developed skills, and you better believe it!

We need to support equal rights for ALL people. Gays are our neighbors, siblings, co-workers, children, (think Dick Cheney), parents, etc. God doesn't make junk. People who "call" themselves Christian, but discriminate against gays are simply NOT very Christian. The GOP lives in the past and history will show that they got this one wrong.

There's so many more crucial concerns riding on this election, than people's bedroom habits and pseudo make-believe religious marriages. I say this because to many Civil Unions would have been fine. These are a happy but shortsighted people, who are simply throwing this election to the other side, to those who just as happily will start to undo and remove all of which has been accomplished.

I truly hope the first thing the Republi'thugs do is put them all back into their closets, which will be a fitting punishment for them turning the economy back into the hands of the bad-guys. Your lifestyle is fine an dandy thing to be concerned about, if it was the only issue.... unfortunately it should take a back seat to the economy, environment, and war mongering. Sorry if I offended, but this issue is not only that important to you, it is that important to swing voters on the other side as well. It's unfortunate that we will all lose because of what should have never left the bedroom.... straight or gay. ... because most people just don't want to know in the first place.

I'm not gay but I have more of a problem with religious nut jobs breathing down other people's necks giving them moral lectures from THEIR bibles. I'm sorry to tell you but we can't say this is America and that all people are equal when they are not. Women, Blacks, Gays, yes you religious nut jobs too all have a place in this country and should be treated equally.

I am Catholic, and I believe in equal rights for the LGBT community. The problem is that marriage is a relgious institution and the government has no right to intervene in that arena. So while I do not believe that they should not be able to get married (and hear me out before freaking out), civil unions and other forms of partnerships should be able to have the EXACT SAME rights as marriage. Now I understand that this treads on the infamous "seperate but equal" idea, but I don't see the Christian Church changing their views any time soon. But while we wait, why not give em the same rights?

I have a question to those out there for those want marriage to include same sex relationships.

I am a Christian, so for me, marriage is uniquely between a man and a woman. At the same time, I believe christianity should have nothing to do with politics or telling people what to do. God proved it with Moses, it didnt work, it never will. It is the whole reason Christ came. A relationship with God can't be built on rules because we always break them, yet Christian busy bodys are more interested in telling you what you can and can't do, then realizing its about grace and the holy spirit. If your not a Christian, why would you follow christian teachings? The instruction of right and wrong of the bible are true, but if you don't believe that, why would I expect you to follow it? If I force you, I am only going to push you away, not show you how great of a God I serve, which is suppose to be the ultimate goal of christainity, right?

With all that said, I am worried about my rights. There is no question our country is moving towards homosexual relationships being morally exceptable. Humans have free will and Americans have a right to vote and change according to the demographics of its population. I am ok with that. However, my fear with the homosexual movement is not that you will go home and be gay. I dont care. I dont care if you want marriage to mean a certain cut of meat on a pig, I really dont. But, will I find myself a criminal for calling homosexuality a sin? Am I going to wake up in an America that does not allow me teach my children that Christ is the only way to God, because that teaching offends?

So, I guess when I look at the movement I wonder about the motive. As stupid as it is for Christians today to be trying to force our right and wrong on you, and I am sorry that they do, in your new found majority, will you do the same to me? And yes, I understand this issue is alot deeper than gay marriage. But I think gay marriage is the focal point of this culture change, and alot of the energy given to it from a conservative side is not becuase they don't want you to have tax breaks, or even because they dont want you to use marriage. Its because we see it like this; to make it legal is to make the bible illegal. If we can find a resolution where those who stand on the bible can do so with respect, and those who stand on other morals can stand with respect, we have a chance at dealing with this issue.

and your motive is not pure... no one is pure...everyone is a sinner...a sinner is not pure... again a christian who speaks from both sides of his mouth....from what I understand of Jesus was that he was a loving man that hung out with prostitutes and the black sheep of society...he loved them...he never called them "sick" or "evil" or damned them to hell...these same people dropped everything to follow him...thats love in its greatest form... today's christians are NO WAY christ like...you speak out of your owned blackened hearts and opinions....using the scripture to spread the "word of God" when you have no concept of what that even is... in the end times (its said using your book) that the devil will come in the Lord's name...spreading the word of the lord....today's so – called christians are doomed... and the leaders that speak the word of the lord are devils... ALL OF THEM...

Well, I wasnt calling myself pure, just my intention with the post. I would hope that your example of love that you used towards Christ would be seen in my post. You know, he told the prostitute to sin no more. He loved and allowed humans to use free will, in fact he demands it, but he did not shy away from the right and wrong that He created. I think that is my argument in my post. Love and let people use there free will, because only through free will can you come to Christ.

Jesus truly was compassionate. He was the one that 'defended' the woman caught in adultery, and in the end, all of her accusers vanished. But even in His compassion, don't forget he did recognize sin, as sin. He commanded her to "Go and sin no more". So he put the accusers in their place, but he also called sin, "sin". And He commanded her not to do it anymore.

First of all, while I respect your religion, I think its quite hubris to think that someone who is not christian can not have "christian values". Not all of us need the fear of god in order to be good, generous and caring people. That being said, you are free to believe and behave anyway you like. In this country we have freedom of religion. If part of your belief structure is that homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else, you are free to believe that as well. The difference comes only in act of law.

Why is it you can believe homosexuality is a sin, teach your children that and it is an accepted value, while others have to live in fear of persecution? No one is going to take away your rights or your faith. Nor is giving those same rights to a gay couple going to change your beliefs in any way. Giving others the same rights under the law you already enjoy, does not mean that they will be taken away from you. Period.

I am a gay man, and could start off here by saying something equally offensive about religion to what was stated by bOb (a cut of meat on a Pig? Really???), but I won't. I'll just keep it simple.

I have no problem with people being religious as long as they keep it in their own home and to themselves. Go ahead and pray to whatever god you wish, just don't shove it down my throat or anyone else's.

Simply out, Religion as NO PLACE in politics or the public lives of others.

Separation of Church and State means that YOU and your god don't get to tell ME how to live.

? I was not trying to be offensive with that comment, so I apologize. My goal was to show that you can call marraige whatever you want, I dont care and that is your right. Just please dont make me call it the same thing when I believe it isnt. That is the point of my post.

So I guess you would feel justified to go out and commit murder or to steal something that is not yours? Or is my God telling you how to live when He says, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal"?

thats funny. this is called "reducteo ad absurdum" or the practice of taking an argument to an extreme ridiculous proportion. funny how you don't use a commandment such as "you shall no covet your neighbors wife" because we know how great the majority of christian americans are at following THAT commandmant. Hrm, I guess gay men would be pretty good at it though, eh?

That was very thoughtful, thank you. I guess I don't understand one point- how would making same sex marriage legal make the Bible illegal? I am not a Christian as you are, but a world where you could not teach your children your religious tenets is not a world I would support. I want you to be able to teach your children whatever it is you think they need to know for your vision of salvation- even though I totally disagree with it. The queer community really is only after equal rights, your religious liberty is not at stake.

While I agree it is wrong, you cant force that on people. God judges the heart, not what laws we pass. What good does it do to pass laws in favor of Christian live styles? Does it bring people to Christ?

You seem Tim, nutjobs like this don't believe in science, and are utterly incapable of rational discussion. They view gay marriage as a sort of big bang effect, whereas, if one homosexual were to be happily married, then the universe would sytematically combust. Its sort of the same theory on the movie "Dogma" you know if God were prooved wrong, than the world would be unmade. There is no REAL reason or explanation that will ever come from your question, because they don't have to answer it.

b0b!: Your comment is thoughtful. You recognize that law should be separate from religion. If gay marriage is legal, it doesn't mean that you can't teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin. To use an extreme example, the KKK is legally allowed to operate. They can say whatever they want about Black people legally. They just cannot use violence. It doesn't mean that the majority of Americans approve of the KKK but they are certainly allowed their freedom. Therefore, you'll be able to say whatever you want and teach your kids whatever you want. However, don't be surprise if in 20 years, your kids' friends or your grandkids' friends will think you are wrong.

Bob – You ask many good questions. I believe that everyone has the right to their opinion about homosexuality and gay marriage. However, people do not have the right to use their opinion to deny gays and lesbians legal equality. Chuches would not and should not be required to perform same-sex marriages if it goes against their teaching.

I do not believe that churches will be required to change their teaching about homosexuality as that would be an infringement of the first ammendment. Gays are asking for civil marriage and civil rights, not religious rights. There are several denominations that fully accept their gay members, ordain gay clergy, and believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality when it is put in historical and cultural context. I am gay, I am Christian, and I am very active in my church.

B0B!, your thoughtful question deserves a reply. I think that LBGT people are for the most part less concerned with the definition of "marriage" than with the very real discrimination that is a result from laws being based on this definition. Just today I heard the story about a gay person who will have to leave the country becausre the route of gaining permanent residency through marriage with his long-term partner is closed to him. Same sex partners are routinely denied health care, pension benefits and tax exemptions. In a majority of states you can even still be legally fired for being gay. "Defenders of marriage" always claim that they don't want to discriminate; yet they fight efforts to change these obvious instances of discrimination every step of the way. To me, that is just wrong.

My answer to your question is I hope not. After all the injustices that the LGBT community has experienced, I hope they have learned to be above persecuting others based on their beliefs. While I may not agree with you, I am not offended in the slightest that your views are different than mine, and why should I be?

What a refreshingly honest and sincere comment. If only more conversations were like this, maybe the internet could actually be a useful forum for debate and exchange! The answer to your question is no – you won't be criminalized. Protection of freedom of speech has only grown stronger in recent decades, and that a robust interpretation of the First Amendment is supported by both the liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court. It is true that the view that marriage does not include SSM may become less mainstream, but I hope that people on my side of the issue will be a bit more understanding that some people disagree with us and not treat those who do like bigots or the enemy.

You can teach your kids whatever you like- including that if they drink wine they are drinking the blood of the founder of your relgion and eat bread they are eating his flesh (sounds barbaric to me), but again, you can teach them whatever you want. But you can't teach them your prejudiced 'values' against gay people in public institutions like schools where my tax money goes to support those institutions. Teach bigotry all you want inside your home, eventually your kids will grow up to either be like you or actually open their hearts and minds. Bottom line, if you're not gay, then gay marriage doesn't pertain to you. I wish more Christians would stop trying to impede the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of other people. Religious freedom is not the same as allowing one religion to impose its 'values' on others.

While I will ignore the insults, you bring up a great point. My tax dollars pay for those schools too. Are you going to use the school to say that homosexual relationships are ok when I disagree? These are the points that will gain equal rights for LBGT community, compromise that allows those with conservative views to have respect. Yes, I know that comes off as hypocritical at this point, I understand. I talking about being effective in your goals, please understand

@b0b: Regarding your objection against public schools (taxpayer funded) teaching that homosexuality is OK (contrary to what you teach withint your home)–
Do you have the same objection to public prayer in schools, for which the religious right has long been pushing for? Is not public prayer in schools objected to by those who do not share that same sentiment? What about teaching "intelligent design" in public schools?
The problem I see with "I don't like my tax dollars funding such-and-such" is that each side of the political spectrum can bring up serious objections to tax dollars funding activities that are considered unacceptable.

You make some interesting points. But please, just because gay marriage becomes legal does not mean either your Christian values or the Bible will become illegal. Please dont allow bigotry and fear to win out by denying the rights of indviduals who love each other enough to get married. I promise we will never outlaw marriage or religion to heterosexual people. Maybe what you really fear is the possiblity of becoming a discriminated minority in the future. Trust me...it feels really horrible. I would not wish it on anyone.

Any time you trot religion out of your head and put it in the way of others, you are on thin ice. Our Founding Fathers specifically created our Declaration and costitutio to EXCLUDE RELIGION as a State/Federal function. The fact that Christianity has snuck in bit by bit, into court houses (Nativity scenes) and Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" added 1955), well, that is an indication that we all need to step back and clean things up, removing the offending material and get back to basics. You are free to have your own family and raise them according to your own beliefs. You are free to join with other families and worship some deity together. But your commune is not free to legislate its ideas on the population at large. That would eventually reduce us to a Taliban-like society, where religion rules. You wouldn't want that now, would you? Thank Thomas Jefferson for being clear-headed, a virtue many lack in these oh-so-holy times.

@b0b: I do not accept that notion that an increase in gay rights will lead to a decrease in rights of religious folks. A common fearmongering tactic by certain members of the religious right is that if same-sex marriage becomes legal everywhere, reliigious institutions will be forced to perform them. This suggestion is ludicrous. There is a difference between receiving a civil license to marry and a religious ceremony. Each religion has its own laws regarding marriage, and those laws don't necessarily jibe with civil law, and don't have to. For example, 2 Hindus (male and female) cannot be married in a Catholic church–even though said Hindus could easily receive a civil license. No law requires the Catholic church to bless a union between 2 Hindus, even though the Hindus have a marriage license. It is for them to either have a JP perform the ceremony, or seek out a religious venue that would bless their union.

Certain sects within Christianity can say or teach whatever they wish from their pulpits regarding the perceived sinfulness of homosexuality. Such is freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The problem starts when religious people militate to deny gays/lesbians the basic rights that other citizens have. Laws come into effect *reactively*. That is, civil rights laws get passed *because* the rights of a minority were being trampled by a majority. Such laws don't get passed in a vacuum–they are a reaction or corrective action to an injustice. I struggle to understand how same-sex marriage or laws against discrimination in the work place can be contrived as a persecution of Christians or denial of their rights (to persecute?).

You know what's funny? This exact same argument came up when we were trying to decide if we as a country would recognize African American marriages. The only difference is that homosexual people didn't start out as slaves, so the fight for civil rights doesn't seem quite as dramatic as the prior fight. That being said, hopefully history will repeat itself once more and people will stop dragging God into an argument that He does not belong in. His judgment comes in the end and it's not our place to do His job.

"Concerned in Cleveland
The Democratic party has become the party of perverts and race baiters. The Republicans have become the party of extreme religion and big business. Where is the party for the normal every day American? It's time to shatter them both and form something useful in the middle."

The "normal every day American" – presuming you're implying "straight" – does not lose any rights if same-sex marriage is recognized. None of the civil rights and benefits granted to opposite-sex couples go away. Had the right to jointly file taxes before same-sex marriage recognition? Still have it when same-sex couples can marry. Had hospital visitation rights? Still have 'em. Had automatic power of attorney, inheritance rights, joint custody of kids? All those rights will be exactly the same for you when same-sex couples can marry. The only thing you lose is EXCLUSIVITY. Which is not a civil right.

When the smoke is gone
This cannot be about rights. There are laws written every day to revoke or grant rights from our congressional bodies. This is about ripping apart the foundation for which this country was built. We can talk about leaving God out of this matter, but the US Constitution includes God. Because God was included as a part of the foundation of these United States, we have seen the prosperity within our land. Notice what happens when God is left out, violence replaces him. We have seen more death by violence in our institutions of learning over the past few years then by drug trafficking. We are seeing more deadly storms, fires, and earth quakes, because of our change of direction from God.
The same sex platform should be about civil rights through civil unions. The definition for Marriage has been established, and should remain.

The Constitution is also about "equal protection under the law". If a same sex couple cannot marry, with the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as a straight couple, then they are not receiving equal protection under the law. Period. Doesn't matter what someone thinks the Bible says or does not say.

I suppose I will believe you when the sky starts falling. Until that, your doomsaying is complete nonsense. If you don't like gay people, don't like them. That is your right. But to remove the rights of another human being simply because you don't agree with them is as much an attack as if they were removing your right to marriage.Marriage is a matter of law, not of god. That's why I am free to walk into city hall, sign a paper and leave the church out of it completely. How is it you can get married to a stripper in Vegas after a wild night of drinking and somehow, that is christian and right, while if in a committed and loving relationship for many years with someone of the same sex, its suddenly against god's will. I call baloney.

I am related to gays/lesbians, not sure why they vote for Democrats when it was President Bill Clinton who in 1996 signed the law that barred the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, DOMA. And I don't see where gays/lesbians will have major roles in the Democratic National Convention. So is this move just a strategy move to win votes or is it real, Clinton did place a big road block for same-sex marriage and he is a Democrat.

People keep claimant that marriage is a religious arrangement and a covenant between man, woman and god. This is only true if the Jewish/Christian God exists and their holy books are accurate. So, until the existence of God is proven and the US becomes a non-secular country, this argument holds no merit whatsoever. You are free to believe it's true, but you're also free to believe in the Tooth Fairy and bigfoot.

Marriage is not a religious institution. If it were so, would you propose banning atheist marriage? Marriage is a completely legal institution in the USA. Denying the legal rights of some, while giving those rights to others goes against the Constitution which guarantees equal rights under the law.

The Democrats are for a vibrant, thriving, diverse culture, where the best and the brightest come from all nations and all walks of life to pool their various talents and passions together to create a Society on a Hill that everyone wants to be a part of.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are for a rigid, strict and traditionalist society of social norms and conformity, in which everyone more or less stays in their assigned societal roles and achieve excellence by fulfulling their duties and obligations.

Its fantasy to believe that Adam and Eve lived 4 thousand years ago. That evolution never happened, that dinosaurs lived with people. Yet those are the people adopting your (R) line of thinking. Pragmatism is just the opposite. Understanding the world is a complicated place and making room for the many different ideas, religions and people who accompany it with fair laws to govern them.

Your bible is the biggest fairy tale there is. Yet you use it to defend your argument against when the facts point the other direction. Republicans would have you believe that the world is not complicated. Just believe in Christ and go to heaven. Democrats see the world with educated eyes, that our beliefs are our own and that others are free to believe differently. Disagree? Be my guest. But we all have equal rights under the law. Deny me those based on fairy tales, and I will destroy you with facts.

Gay rights agruments are nothing but a distraction. How will gay rights affect the country's economy? How will gay rights affect the illegal alien theft of taxpayer dollars via social programs? How will gay rights affect social security, medicare, tax reform, foreign entanglements we are involved in or the jobless rate?

Absolutely nothing but a waste of time and a way for politicians to appear to be doing something while continuing to push aside making hard decisions that will actually affect all of us, not just a few loud mouths.

Thanks to all of you who have bravely exited your closets... now please go back in and shut the ph u k up so politicians can (maybe) focus on important issues instead of your self centered needs.

Stephen Douglas argues that people should only care about what he cares about. I really hope you care about ice cream. I love ice cream and would be devastated to know that I am wrong and have to give ice cream up until you learn to multi-task.

You need a dose of compassion. You fit the title "BiGOT" to a tee. The world is full of different cultures and they all want the same thing that was handed to you – enough to fight for it. Maybe you should run for office and then you'll have a say but if all you want to do is show the world how bigoted you are – the you shut the ph uk up and go back in your own closet. You'd be better off spreading good instead of hate – but maybe you don't know any better. You want the gays to go away so the government can focus on what you want instead of what they want. Sounds selfish doesn't it.

equal rights is not a distraction. try giving up your right to marry, file joint tax returns, and getting the break like everyone else. it affects millions of tax dollars and spending dollars, so don't say it does not affect the economy. inequality has always prevented full use of monies.

Equal rights are very important Stephen. The government is large and powerful, they can focus on more than one domestic issue at a time. Would you have told Wilson to not focus on a woman's right to vote because of pressing foreign issue of the time I would hope not. The economy is important and jobs are definitely important and the President speaks on these issues everyday. You can choose to listen or not we are living in a "free" country well I am not.

First they came for the blacks and I did nothing, because I was not black, then the jews and I did nothing, then they came for me and there was no one left to defend me. Equality is important to all of us, we all are guaranteed equal protection under the law in the Constitution. Not important? Maybe not to you...maybe not now...but someday.

Marriage rights are important (because it has direct impact on your benefits which has a direct impact on your livelihood and family), but what's even more important is that in this day and age people can be fired from their jobs for being gay, bi-sexual, or trans-gender. And there are no (federal) laws to protect against that.

Actually, there are laws that protect gay and lesbian employees from termination due to their sexuality. The 14th Amendment protects the LBGT population against discrimination through state actions and identifying as LBGT affords protected class status. Being gay or a lesbian or the like and then failing in your performance of your job is not protected, b/c your protected class status is not at issue. Your contention is inaccurate and harmful to having a quality discussion about human and civil rights.

Rick you are factually wrong. There is no federal law protecting LGBT communities from discrimination. There are a few states who have adopted laws, but the majority have not. Its a travesty. As is your ignorance in defense of "facts" you don't bother to look up. Read the 14th amendment before quoting it next time.

Please name a single state that requires a person to believe in god in order to get a marriage license. Freedom of religion also included from religion. You also need to brush up on your history. Our founding fathers weren't overly religious by any means.

I thought the president passed this subject over a couple of months ago and stated he would let the states decide. Is he flip flopping his decision again??? He's buying votes again and neither part is going to do anything about it. Shame on both houses,

Yes, because we know that the gay community has no culture. All those artists and musicians and designers and writers and...they steal from the real american culture...wait, what American culture again?

FULL LGBT rights have been part of the Libertarian party's platform since it's inception, yet LGBTs seem to consistently vote for Democrats even when the party was 'on the fence' about it. What is so taboo about voting 3rd party?

only a fool who backs LGBT rights would go libertarian. to be more accurate, while libertarians are generally sympathetic to LGBT rights, their #1 mantra is state's rights–if the state you live in votes to discriminate against the LGBT community, tough cookies. they ludicrously and stupidly expect minorities to drum up majority support, when it is human nature for majorities to oppress any minorities they find remotely alien. most libertarians, for example, condemned prop 8, but blamed the LGBT community for not drumming up the votes, and it was also wrong for the courts to overturn it. oddly, they forgot the words of their idol, ayn rand, who explicitly opined that our system of government was designed so that people could vote on PUBLIC matters, not PRIVATE ones. she also explicitly stated how the state has NO SAY in the conduct of two consenting adults. lastly, ron paul himself opposed the supreme court overturning TX sodomy laws in 2003. bottom line: if you back a libertarian, you should fully expect sodomy laws and other nonsense will hold in bible belt states.

if you want to marry your sisters or parents go ahead. The bible says it's ok. Adam and Eve's kids obviously were having kids together and Lot got both his daughters pregnant after they got him good and drunk and he was a super righteous man.

The Democrates are risking the entire election on this issue, I will vote fpr President Obama, but hope, pray, then vote for the Republicans to have enough control of the House and Senate to block homosexual weddings.

With a name like Jamaal, you are obviously black. Perhaps that is why you will vote for Obama. If you oppose the platform, then vote Republican. Geeze, I can't believe there are still people like you in America.

Thankfully you support our nation having a black President but not enough sense to see that you also support the same bigot-minded ideas that whites had back when they didn't allow black people or women to vote. Wow, it surprises and disappoints me when I read/see/hear about the hypocrisy in our society and especially in the black community and among women.

To amber: homosexual marriage or any marriage is a religious issue in which, under the Freedom of Religion, the tenant are set by people of that religion. There is no Holy Book of Homosexuality, thus Gay marriage is not something to be solemnize and recorded by state or federal government. –31 states have voted no to homosexual destroying religious tenant permitted by the US Constitution

The Democrates are risking the entire election on this issue, I will vote fpr President Obama, but hope, pray, then vote for the Republicans to have enough control of the House and Senate to block homosexual weddings.

How is the right to marry a civil right? It isn't, they can still vote, they can still be gay in public, no one is making them sit at the back of the bus, or use different restrooms or fountains. They have the same rights as everyone else EXCEPT the right to marry. Big deal, it's not a civil rights issue.

When it came to voters in 31 states, they voted gay marriage down, that tells you how the rest of the country feels about it, since when does a small minority over-rule the large majority??

@what? There are two counter-arguments to your points. People in the pro-same sex marriage movement say it's the responsibility of the majority to protect and promote the rights of the minority. The other is marriage in the US is a civil issue because governmental agencies issue licenses for marriage, i.e. a civil wedding. They say therefore, government can not say only a certain kind of person with a specific sexual orientation is eligible for that civil license. They argue this is the very definition of discrimination.

Seriously? Do you really beleive what you just said? They do not have the same rights because they are not married. Their government pensions do not go to their partners, they do not have medical rights to see partners, if they want to be included on their partner's group plan, they can't. Social security when one partner dies, does not pass to them like it does married couples.
Also, they voted bi racial couples down many years ago... did that make it right? And why does it matter so much to you? If they want to marry, then let them.
Don't be on the wrong side of history. Move on.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

Let me address the last part of your post first. The majority cannot vote to restrict the rights of the majority. That is why we have the Judicial branch of our government.
Civil rights (and I use civil here to denote the civil code of our governments as opposed to the criminal code) are protected in the Constitution. Equal Protection means that everyone has to be viewed the same under the law. Since the government grants rights to those that can marry it is unconstituional to deny these benefits to a couple just because they are the same sex. The law dictates who can make decisions for another, who inherits, how property can be held and if you can file taxes and other documents as a married couple.
Religion has zero to do with this. If your belief system is against same sex marriage that is a choice you have made. Don't perform same sex marriages in your church but don't use your religious belief to deny protection under the law just because a couple is the same sex.

You're a idiot. Marriage is a civil right by the state. It is also a religious ceremony. You can get married by the state and not be religious. At tax time legally married gay couples can not select married on a 1040 and will pay more in taxes. There are a host of other legal issues surrounding marriage from healthcare, adoption, property to name a few. So yes, it is very much a civil right. You think because no one is saying no I refuse to sell you a chicken sandwich then gays don't have a civil leg to stand on? In some states you can still be fired just for being gay.

This is not completely factual. Two people living together and both working file individual returns can get the same total return or greater than a married couple. It all depends on factors of income and deductions. To be fair if a gay couple is together and only one works yes their return will be less because they cannot claim their partner as a dependent. How do I know this because I have a family and 4 children two incomes and we still don't make enough to claim the deduction we are supposed to get! Compared to friend both working living together but not married. In comparison their return is greater and\or tax burden is less. The whole Idea of taxes as an arguing point is pretty lame.

@kf9876 actually you are incorrect. A gay couple with one person working and supporting the other can claim tat person as a dependent. They can not file as married due to doma. If two people have a large difference in pay being married pays off as well. Just because you can't file for a deduction doesn't make it right to punish others. What's lame is people like you boo hooing religious dogma. Everyone files (or is supposed to) taxes not everyone believes in your god. I'm sick of hearing religious people proclaiming marriage is a religious institution. You lost that claim when you allowed the government to use it as a legal term. Gay people aren't trying to force a priest to perform a religious ceremony. In fact, I'd bet a larger percentage of gays don't even believe in your god vs the hetero population.

Never and your right marriage is not a right. I don't understand why it is so important for gay people to marry in the first place. Marriage is a covenant between God, a man, and a woman. It is not a legal action, stop trying to change its definition. Christians marry because God requires it for them to be together. Sorry but that doesn't work for Gay people. God does not honor two people of the same sex being married. That is not my opinion that is His view. What is the driving force for gays to marry except to gain some kind of financial reward. Don't say for love because you don't need something in writing for that. It is just another way to work the system while living a perverted life style and call it legal. There is nothing natural about being gay unless the meaning you are referring to is happy.

Go read the marriage license you have to sign before entering into the CIVIL union of marriage. No where on it is religion or any covenant with your god mentioned. Conversely, go try to get your church to marry you without a marriage license issued by the civil authorities. Marriage is a civil union. That's a fact you cannot refute no matter how hard you try.

Correct me if I am wrong. Does the government issue a license before a couple can be legally married? Yes? Then it is not the church that allows a couple to be legally married in this country.

Correct me again if I am wrong. Does the Church make the laws of this country? No? Then the Church should not have a say in matters such as a person's civil rights. If the Church does not wish for a couple to have a public ceremony in that building, that church has the right to say "no". It does not have the right to dictate to the entire country what can and cannot be done. Just because you disagree with it does not mean it should apply to everyone in this country.

The Fourteenth Amendement to the United States Constitution guarantees that every citizen of the United States should be provided equal protection under the law. By denying a couple something that other couples can receive is not equal protection. I can understand your point if the government did not issue licenses and provide benefits to married individuals. But it does. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, denying a same sex couple the right to marry and all the benefits (ability to file jointly on the tax return, receipt of social security death benefits, etc.) that comes with being married is unconstitutional.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and those states who have passed laws denying marriage equality for couples are unconstitional. The Church is not the organization who marries people legally. They perform some marriages.

Boy do you have you head stuck in the religious sand box. Get this fact straight. The United States does not have a national religion. It has no religion at all. It can't define it's laws based upon religion. Therefore, if the reason for denying gay marraige is religious beliefs, you lose. Your church can deny marraige to whomever it wants. But the government cannot without violating constitutional rights. The solution is obvious. We need laws that say that any marraige conducted in a church ceremony is religious only and has no lawful and legal affect outside of its religious context without a second civil ceremony and marriage license. No more signing the marriage licenses in church. That can be done at the court house where it belongs. You religious nut cases can define your religious marriages however you want. Why stop there. Feel free to define when, where, and how relations take place. Perhaps you want to govern how many times a week. With the actual legal affect of marriage happening outside of the church we can finally obtain true separation of church and state.

"That is not my opinion, that is His view." No, that is the opinion of some preacher who told you that. And it's your fault for believing it. What if some preacher told you that it is God's view that unbelievers should be killed? Would you strap on a suicide vest? Go right ahead. Just don't be near anyone when you pull the trigger. I am really sick of these religious fanatics that abandon their own identity to some childish fantasy, and then abandon all responsibility for their cruelty and ignorance by saying "it's not me, it's God's law." What a disgustingly cowardly way to live. GROW UP!! Oh yeah, and stop having kids. We've got enough mouths to feed.

You must be a catholic. Same old blah blah blah. You folks have an excuse or everything. Marriage is for procreation. You can practice sex to prep for children even thought it supposed to be for procreating. Can't have children or dont want them. Well that's ok. You can still be married and practice. Just not for gays cuz they can't procreate. Oh and old people can get married to but that's ok that they can't procreate. Oh and yeh I was married and had children but the catholic church will make it all better by annulling it and making my children bastards but at least I can get married again before god. Yippie. Why you not trying to make divorce illegal or block atheists fom marrying? You're a bunch of hypocrites!

@what? "When it came to voters in 31 states, they voted gay marriage down, that tells you how the rest of the country feels about it, since when does a small minority over-rule the large majority??"

When it comes to Civil Rights since the founding of the nation. You really need to go back to school or something. There is a reason States don't get to vote on civil rights (AND YES THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE), the majority thought blacks and whites shouldn't marry, how is this any differernt.

Democrats were for segregation? Really? Ever hear of LBJ (Democratic president after JFK)? Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (pushed through congress by LBJ)? Perhaps you should Google it, or even better, read an American history book before making another ignorant comment.

Yes, it's true that the majority of states oppose gay marriage. It's also true that the majority of Americans favor gay marriage. This is easily reconcilable, since conservative states (whose people oppose gay marraige), are much less populated than liberal states (that support gay marriage). If indeed the population of this country was equally divided amongst the states, the number of gay bashing states would be in the minority.

getting married is a civil right to gays because hetero's can do it and gay's can't...thats unfair.. and if people were allowed to vote on giving blacks equal rights in the 1960s, the MAJORITY would have voted that down... and you know it...hell, there are some states that would still vote against black rights if they could...

Steve Kastenbaum here, the reporter who put this story together. Let's bring the discussion out of the school yard and back to the realities surrounding the topic at hand. I'm wondering if anyone had heard of Madeline Davis prior to listening to this piece? When I went to the LGBT welcoming party here in Charlotte I found it interesting that the community felt completely accepted into the DNC. They shrugged off comments from pundits who believe the only reason President Obama's views on same sex marriage "evolved" was because he needed to bring in campaign donations to replace the money from Wall Street that backed him in 2008 but is going Republican in this election.

The Democratic party has become the party of perverts and race baiters. The Republicans have become the party of extreme religion and big business. Where is the party for the normal every day American? It's time to shatter them both and form something useful in the middle.

Gays, perverts? Tell me, how many gay dudes do you see on To Catch A Predator. Looks like most all of them are married to women. And how many gay guys caused our 55% divorce rate by heterosexual married folks? If gays are preverts, what the heck are heterosexuals? A satanic scourge?

Concerned in Cleveland, I find you to be every bit as extremist as these 2 parties. However, there are other candidates. Too bad your vote doesn't count in a presidential election, though. At least you can still vote for a 3rd party candidate to let both parties know you are not pleased with either of them.

@Concerned in Cleveland: Well I'm sorry. But you're not in the middle if you don't believe in equal rights. You may be a middle-of-the roader for economic policies, but you are right-wing for social policies.

My partner of 22 years and I are happy with the developments of the last few years, but we're not kidding ourselves. We know there's still a long uphill battle for full equality for our community. We'd love to be able to marry, but we're very patient. I truthfully never thought our struggle would have come so far since we met each other. It might take 20 more years, but we're willing to wait.................. I love him more than I could ever tell family and friends at a ceremony, and he's really worth it.

You can legally marry your sixteen year old first cousin in Georgia. However, you cannot legally marry your life partner, even if you have lived together for the past thirty years and raised two children together because gay marriage is not legal in that state.

In many states it is not legal to marry first cousins at all. In other words, state law differs on marriage eligibility
requirements based on what the legislature adopts. This seems to cut against your argument. There is no fundamental constitutional right to marry whomever you want. Otherwise, these laws would be stricken down and all 1st cousins everywhere would be entitled to marry, there could be same sex marriage, father could marry daughter, brother marry sister, maybe even man marry horse etc etc. You seem to argue that state law should prohibit certain marriages, ie first cousins from marrying and there should be an age requirement. Also you would argue that even though such marriages should be prohibited, same sex marriages should be allowed based on the reasons you articulate. But once a law is adopted, that is the law unless it is changed.

It stops when there is reasonable potential for harm to another. Incestual procreation means increased chances of children with serious impairments. That being said, I don't care if you marry your mother. Start your own organization and get to campaigning, son!

One of the main concerns with some insane Extremist Righties is not that they care about gay marriage, but they are concerned about the "Slippery Slope" and what it could lead to, like pedophiles, beastiality, etc. begining pushing for "equal rights".

And what is your classically well trained response to their concerns: "Comparing gay people to dogs is really beyond the pale. Take a good look in the mirror at who you are. And change it." So you've managed to take a stupid overly simplified response and make it worse by adding your own stupidity to the answer.

Also, if changing a person is as easy as looking in a mirror then by your own definition shouldn't gay people be able to just "change it." That mirror you're looking into is what an idiot looks like.

Define consenting adult, since that's exactly where the future legal battles would be.

Why should species matter? Because it seems wrong? To some people out there gay is wrong. If society justifies that as being okay based upon consenting adults NEXT we'll have to define consenting adult, just like we have to !%^&ing define "Marriage".

You want the best answer. The GD government needs to get out of the "relationship" business. Get rid of any legal or tax benefits for being 'married'...that way everyone is treated as EQUAL, right? Oh wait...hold on, that means certain people would get schrewed, can't do that then. We want equality, but only so long as the people in our group benefit from it.

So are we going to have an intelligent, well informed discussion about this topic or are you going to clog up the comments section with remarks more suited for the elementary school yard? Are you seriously equating same sex marriage with incest and bestiality? If you are you are relegating yourself to being irrelevant in this well meaning discussion. Thank you.

Gays appear to want to destroy Freedom of Religion in America. Marriage is a religious tenet not a civil right, gays want to remove the basic freedoms which were establish by our founding fathers. Incest and bestiallity are just wrong.

Jamaal – where do you get your proof of these rediculous accusations? No church has to perform a marriage for anyone if they don't feel it's right for them and no law has ever been passed that said different. Gay rights have nothing to do with destroying religion. There are plenty of judges and church officials that are already willing and ready to marry same sex couples – no one is gonna be forced to do it. You are talking B.S.

Jamaal – you are right – incest and beastiality are wrong – I don't know any gay person that would disagree with that. Unfortunately, history shows that the majority of these acts occured with heterosexuals – not homosexuals.

It's about time. So called equal rights guaranteed in our country have been a long time in becoming truly equal. This is one of the last big hurdles. I'll be happy to see it behind me as well as the embarassing era of close-mindedness and bigotry which accompanied it.